Name an RPG you like that has something about it you think is innovative, neat, or just runs the way you like?
For example. I like Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool because it uses the D4 to D12 dice as attributes, skills, and special class ability bonuses. Roll all of them, pick the best two, and add. Beat a target number. I like this setup.
Another is an add-on set of rules for any of the D6 set of games called Dueling Blades by Griffon Publishing. It treats combat as an opposed roll, with the margin of success setting one of four outcomes that range from simply moving, a stun, a wound, and last is a GM discretion critical hit. Just adding movement to combat makes it more interesting than two dudes taking turns until one dies.
It doesn't need to be combat either.
Most of the older games I play? ;D
That's an exaggeration, but it is true that most of the 80's and 90's games I still play are due to some combination of nostalgia and a neat mechanic or two. Not to say they're bad, but I could probably get by using a couple of much newer game systems and just adapting the source material.
The original Deadlands games immediately leap to mind. I run Savage Worlds games, but any Deadlads has to be OG. There's just a...flavor? Energy? to the old game that I don't find SW captures, despite being a smoother system.
I've mentioned before that I really like the way Dragon Warriors handles melee combat, with active defense scores and armor piercing checks, but that game has another mechanic which I not only like, but will probably be importing into other games going forward: Attribute checks.
Like a lot of old-school games, attribute checks are made by rolling under your character's score on the relevant attribute. However, for challenges which would in reality have a fairly static difficulty, the task is given a difficulty rating, and if your score exceeds that rating, you don't have to roll.
As an example: You want to climb a wall. Barring extraordinary conditions like high winds or ice, that wall is going to be the same difficulty to climb every time. Let's say the wall has a difficulty rating of 13. If you have a Reflexes score of 14 or more, you are able to climb that wall. If not, roll under your Reflexes; maybe you manage to pull off something you wouldn't usually be good enough for. This is a very handy way of providing variable difficulties without needing dice modifiers, it speeds up the game, and it makes less likely the situation you get all the time in D&D, where your 9 strength wizard rolls lucky and gets to break down the same door that your 18 strength fighter just failed to do so.
A variation of the system also works well for certain assisted checks. Say you need to lift a heavy stone block. The strength rating for it might be 35. The GM shouldn't even let a single character roll for that, but you can get three or four characters together, and if their strengths add up together to 38, they can now lift it no problem.
I love Dark Heresy just because of the 8 pages of critical hit tables with detailed descriptions of what happens, with what type of weapon and how severe it is. The few times I've run Dark Heresy it's always been a treat for my group to roll on the critical hit tables and see what messed up thing happens.
I like the way the Dragon Quest critical hits work.
DQ has the basic critical (bypassing armor in its case), and then it has a critical hit chart that is highly varied in the results. Based on the type of damage being done, the chart can do nothing additional all the way to effectively an outright kill. Moreover, it is one chart that manages to get a lot of variety by weapon type. For example, piercing weapons only do extra critical damage on the chart 20% of the time, but those results are typically rough. Get a critical hit from an arrow or spear, it could be nothing more than the usual critical. Or it could be an arrow in the eye. Then even better, the slashing and bludgeoning weapons overlap on some results but not others, accounting for things like battle axes that are both edged and heavy.
Given the age of the system, and how the base mechanic works, the implementation could be improved in a streamlined system. However, for its time, it does a remarkable job of showing weapons being able to kill in one hit, using a chart that fits on a single page, but the fact that critical hits mostly don't produce additional results on the chart make the characters more survivable. (Surviving disease in DQ, not so much. ) This has the overall effect of making combat seem much more deadly than it is--because occasionally it is even worse.
Marvel Super Heroes FASERIP
All abilities, including Attributes (Primary Abilities), Powers and Gear, are rated using a descriptive Rank and Rank Number, with a universal color coded table for related ability rolls. All actions are resolved by making an Ability/Power Rank roll and the color rolled determines degree of success and has a special result: White (Fail), Green (Marginal Success), Yellow (Complete Success) or Red (Critical Success). If the attack you're using inflicts damage the amount is Rank Number damage. If it heals damage the amount is Rank Number damage. If it resists damage, the amount resisted is Rank Number damage. If its a condition, the difficulty to resist it is Power Rank. If the power has a rank it's determined by the power's Rank as well, as is your speed if it's a power like Lightning Speed, etc.
Basically everything revolves around Rank and Rank Number, and once you understand that you can easily run the game. If a situation arises, as a GM you can pretty much assign a Rank and it gives you any rolls, difficulty to resist or damage inflicted, healed or resisted. And the descriptive nature of the ranks (Poor, Typical, Excellent, Remarkable, etc.) makes it very intuitive.
Quote from: King Tyranno on December 28, 2022, 02:23:05 PM
I love Dark Heresy just because of the 8 pages of critical hit tables with detailed descriptions of what happens, with what type of weapon and how severe it is. The few times I've run Dark Heresy it's always been a treat for my group to roll on the critical hit tables and see what messed up thing happens.
I've implemented a similar system in my D&D game based on the original WFRPG. Like WFRPG, you only roll when you are at zero hit points so while it may seem like it makes the game more lethal, it actually does the opposite.
Three mechanics that I think are great innovations:
1) The Stress Dice from Alien RPG. A great way of adding tension and a better way of handling insanity IMO
2) The Chase system from James Bond 007. The part in question is the "Red Line" mechanic. The general idea is that each player bids for their Initiative with the lowers your Initiative bid meaning your more likely you to go first but also the less likely you are to succeed on your rolls. I'd like to implement this idea as a general rule but have never found a decent way. The JB007 game uses multiplication to resolve it which not many games use as a difficulty adjustment mechanism.
3) Bushido's Zanshin. A weird name but it basically is a chart where you compare your level with your mental ability scores to see how many actions you get per round. This way characters gain more actions per round as they level up which is a good and simple way of reflecting combat experience. Not only does it replace the extra attacks that some games get but can make high level characters more effective without just giving them higher and higher bonuses.
It's not really a specific mechanic, but even though I don't love all of the theming, worldbuilding and cetera in Ascendant as much as some other RPGs...
Ascendant has awesome mechanics more generally from my perspective. I like knowing what each value means in roughly concrete terms. It appeals to me on a simulationist level, and its mechanics do that. They're heavy in character design but fast and easy in play. They also make me feel like the stats have meaning both in contested plays and more generally within the setting. Just all around a pretty fun and interesting system for my tastes. Basically the only reason I like it as much as I do comes down to the overall mechanics.
I really like how FUDGE dice work. It's just that the games they're associated with aren't too my liking for various reasons.
Exalted 3e, for Withering and Decisive. It plays a lot like Dissidia but on tabletop.
Spiritual Attributes from The Riddle of Steel (although I renamed them "Spiritual Aspects" in my homebrew second edition). Basically, each PC picks five traits that reflect their biggest drives, passions, conscience, luck, destiny or faith, each of which can rank from 0 to 5 dice; rolls that match the SAs gain those dice as a dice bonus, and you earn more dice in them by taking actions that they support or encourage (e.g. you gain Conscience dice by doing the right thing, as you understand it, when it's risky or costly to do so). These dice are also spent as your experience points, so playing in accord with your own PC's most important motivations is both a way to be more effective in the moment and how you gain experience to become more competent long-term.
It's not just a mechanic - but it's a mechanical expression that I find elegant that requires some thought to the math in how it's used.
Savage Worlds does it very well. The idea that one has a Stat that is either direct or derived that is mechanically representative of ones ability to passively defend one's self that is tied *directly* to ones attacker's ability to hit them. In this case, ones Parry Rating is derived directly from ones Fighting Skill. This immediately lets melee combatants really shine.
Talislanta does this by having one's Skill (be it offensive, or Acrobatics or whatever) added as a penalty to an attacker's roll.
This requires there be a uniform target-number to succeed. Further extrapolations of this allow degrees of success depending on the roll.
Most systems don't go this far, they'll use a flat number like AC and the characters skill means literally nothing. (Although Fantasy Craft did fix this in their 3.x rules).
Quote from: tenbones on December 29, 2022, 05:39:11 PM
It's not just a mechanic - but it's a mechanical expression that I find elegant that requires some thought to the math in how it's used.
Savage Worlds does it very well. The idea that one has a Stat that is either direct or derived that is mechanically representative of ones ability to passively defend one's self that is tied *directly* to ones attacker's ability to hit them. In this case, ones Parry Rating is derived directly from ones Fighting Skill. This immediately lets melee combatants really shine.
Talislanta does this by having one's Skill (be it offensive, or Acrobatics or whatever) added as a penalty to an attacker's roll.
This requires there be a uniform target-number to succeed. Further extrapolations of this allow degrees of success depending on the roll.
Most systems don't go this far, they'll use a flat number like AC and the characters skill means literally nothing. (Although Fantasy Craft did fix this in their 3.x rules).
Most skill-based systems tend to be kinda like this, with attacks often being an opposed skill check against the defender's skill (either the appropriate melee skill if parrying, or some kind of Athletics or Acrobatic skill if dodging). Since it's skill vs skill, and all skills use basically the same mechanics it all works out neatly and character skill has an appropriate impact on their ability to defend themselves (as it should IMO). But then armor needs to work a different way, other than it just making you harder to hit, like in D&D. You need to use Damage Reduction, or maybe something like Armor as Extra HP, like Palladium games.
I prefer unified mechanics that fade into the background.
The turn undead mechanic from OD&D (and early editions) is the lead face on Mt. Rushmore for me.
I have home-brewed a lot over the years based on that mechanic.
I like the one-sentence character creation from Cypher System, it's predecessors Numenera and The Strange, plus it's half-cousin Invisible Sun.
Each character is "Name is an {adjective} {noun} who {verbs}."
The descriptor (adjective) is generally a one-word personality descriptor such as "clam" or "tough". They provide a handful of benefits such as skill training, stat benefits, or roll bonuses. These are all available at character creation and don't increase with level.
The type (class) provides what you'd expect in a character class. In addition to abilities as you level, chosen from a list instead of prescribed, they provide initial stat baselines.
The focus (verb) is a mechanically meaningful epitaph such "bears a halo of fire" or "lives in the wilderness". They provide specific powers per level.
This isn't that different from the traditional race/class of D&D or the 5x5 method of nWoD/CoD games. What I like about it is you can select just a handful of each (most Cypher games have 3-4 types at most) and provide a lot of potential mechanically different characters and be done by picking one item from each column. It is as good, maybe better, for new players as OD&D/BX/BECMI lines. Even someone who doesn't know much about RPGs can get playing a "Brave Warrior who Throves with Deadly Accuracy".
Quote from: FingerRod on December 30, 2022, 10:11:37 AM
The turn undead mechanic from OD&D (and early editions) is the lead face on Mt. Rushmore for me.
I have home-brewed a lot over the years based on that mechanic.
It is pretty straightforward forward, and the number of uses of it, including Dune Bene Gesserit powers, is extensive. It is arguably the system to use for new class powers if you are starting from OD&D base
1990s Alternity I like for its entire system more than the setting, which isn't a bad setting but just isn't great either. It has:
Several degrees of success.
Damage from attacks tied to the success degree.
Single-roll resolution where resistance from an opponent is factored in as a penalty rather than a need for an opposing roll.
Ablative armor that reduces incoming damage rather than making one harder to hit.
Health pools that do not automatically increase with levels.
I really, really like the rule mechanics. Shame it tanked super hard like it did.
I love the funky dice and the dice chain mechanic from DCC where you can just move up and down it. Fighting two-hamded? Roll d14 to hit rather than d20. So easy to use for all kinds of situations. I was mildy off-put by the idea of more dice at first, but now I use those DCC dice in just about every other RPG I play.
Choice #2 would be the Siege Engine from Castles & Crusades. Another super easy, intuitive mechanic.
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 30, 2022, 10:52:01 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on December 30, 2022, 10:11:37 AM
The turn undead mechanic from OD&D (and early editions) is the lead face on Mt. Rushmore for me.
I have home-brewed a lot over the years based on that mechanic.
It is pretty straightforward forward, and the number of uses of it, including Dune Bene Gesserit powers, is extensive. It is arguably the system to use for new class powers if you are starting from OD&D base
Absolutely. Not familiar with Dune Gesserit Powers but I have used it extensively with OD&D base. Assassins, thieves, etc.
Another little free game I like is called Pocket Fantasy.
It's schtick is the entire game uses just 1D6. At least it tries. In reality there are lots of times you roll advantage, aka 2D6 and take the better result. Example; climbing a wall for a rogue vs any other class.
However, the game has two more neat features.
Out of combat vs in combat magic. In combat a wizard has only six spells to pick from, and can do so twice per fight. Out of combat the wizard has no spell list. You just tell the GM what you want to do, and the GM can set a difficulty number of 2-6, or just not allow it. Like a spell to summon a brick bridge to cross a river. The GM could even change difficulty as the GM needs it to work, or not work. This can be done so the story plot is not derailed by the wizard who can just magic away every problem.
The other is how combat rolls work. The game doesn't bother with hit rolls. Each combatant just rolls their combat skill dice, and that is the damage they could do, but the defender likewise rolls their own combat skill, and that is the damage they block. It's simple, but effective.
I've watched a lot of vids by the author of Pocket Fantasy reviewing other games, but not a lot on his game.
Now I want to try it.
Quote from: FingerRod on December 31, 2022, 05:58:45 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 30, 2022, 10:52:01 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on December 30, 2022, 10:11:37 AM
The turn undead mechanic from OD&D (and early editions) is the lead face on Mt. Rushmore for me.
I have home-brewed a lot over the years based on that mechanic.
It is pretty straightforward forward, and the number of uses of it, including Dune Bene Gesserit powers, is extensive. It is arguably the system to use for new class powers if you are starting from OD&D base
Absolutely. Not familiar with Dune Gesserit Powers but I have used it extensively with OD&D base. Assassins, thieves, etc.
They are the witchy women from the Dune series.
Here's one example, where the T and D are used to control humans: http://strangemagic.robertsongames.com/2012/09/bene-gesserit-for-bx-d.html
I've been reading Index Card RPG lately, and it has a couple of ideas I really like in it.
One is playing everything, including downtime, out in turns. I know that exploration turns have been in D&D since the original edition, but they've kind of sloughed off as the game has developed. The idea of parsing even what would otherwise be free-form roleplay into dedicated time sections and calling on all the players in turn appeals to me. As someone who largely plays through VTT/voice-chat these days, I'm entirely too familiar with the problem of people getting talked over or moving their tokens around while the GM is focused on something else.
The one I like better though is ICRPG's "effort" system, and the way it essentially assigns hit points to tasks like lock-picking or dispelling magic. This strikes me as an excellent way to add tension to routine tasks when time is of the essence, and I particularly like its potential for wizard duels. One thing D&D has always struggled with is its magic-vs-magic rules. Picture the bit in Moria where Gandalf tries to use magic to hold a doorway against the Balrog. In D&D terms, Gandalf casts Hold Portal, the Balrog either casts Knock, or if it doesn't have Knock it casts Dispel Magic and rolls once for instant success. In ICRPG, that Could be Gandalf and the Balrog making a series of opposed rolls, one adding HP to the Hold spell, and the other one knocking them off.
EDIT: It also has some ideas I'm iffy about. The notion of tying class-progression to items seems profoundly suspect to me.